nary generation. "What is man, that he should be clean? And he that is born. of a woman, that he should be righteous ?" Our author, pages 141, 142, represents man's being born of a woman, as a periphrasis, to signify man; and that there is no design in the words to give a reason, why man is not clean and righteous. But the case is most evidently otherwise, if we may interpret the Book of Job by itself: it is most plain, that man's being born of a woman is given as a reason of his not being clean, chap. xiv. 14: "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" Job is speaking there expressly of man being born of a woman, as appears in verse 1. And here how plain is it, that this is given as a reason of man's not being clean? Concerning this Dr. Taylor says, "That this has no respect to any moral uncleanness, but only common frailty," &c. But how evidently is this also otherwise? When that uncleanness, which a man has by being born of a woman, is expressly explained of unrighteousness, in the next chapter at verse 14," What is man that he should be clean? And he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?" And also in chap. xxv. 4, "How then can man be justified with God? And how can he be clean that is born of a woman?" It is a moral cleanness Bildad is speaking of, which a man needs in order to being justified. His design is, to convince Job of his moral impurity, and from thence of God's righteousness in his severe judgments upon him; and not of his natural frailty.

And without doubt, David has respect to this same way of derivation of wickedness of heart, when he says, Psalm li. 5, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." It alters not the case as to the argument we are upon, whether the word translated conceive, signifies conceive, or nurse; which latter our author takes so much pains to prove: for when he has done all, he speaks of it as a just translation of the words to render them thus: "I was born in iniquity, and in sin did my mother nurse me," page 135. If it is owned that man is born in sin, it is not worth the while to dispute whether it is expressly asserted that he is conceived in sin. But Dr. Taylor after his manner insists, that such expressions, as being born in sin, being transgressors from the womb, and the like, are only phrases figuratively to denote aggravation and high degree of wickedness. But the contrary has been already demonstrated, from many plain Scripture instances. Nor is one instance produced, in which there is any evidence that such a phrase is used in such a manner. A poetical sentence out of Virgil's Eneids, has here been produced, and made much of by some, as parallel with this, in what Dido says to Eneas in these lines:

Nec tibi diva parens, generis nec Dardanus auctor,
Perfide Sed duris genuit te cautibus horrens
Caucasus, hyrcanæque admorunt ubera tygres.

In which he tells Æneas, that not a goddess was his mother, nor Anchises his father; but that he had been brought forth by a horrid, rocky mountain, and nursed at the dugs of tigers, to represent the greatness of his cruelty to her. But how unlike and unparallel is this! Nothing could be more natural than for a woman, overpowered with the passion of love, and distracted with raging jealousy and disappointment, thinking herself treated with brutish perfidy and cruelty, by a lover, whose highest fame had been his being the son of a goddess, to aggravate his inhumanity and hardheartedness with this, that his behavior was not worthy the son of a goddess, nor becoming one whose father was an illustrious prince; and that he acted more as if he had been brought forth by hard, un.elenting rocks, and had sucked the dugs of tigers. But what is there in the

case of David parallel, or at all in like manner leading him to speak of himself as born in sin, in any such sense? He is not speaking himself, nor any one else speaking to him, of any excellent and divine father and mother, that he was born of; nor is there any appearance of his aggravating his sin by its being unworthy of his high birth. There is nothing else visible in David's case, to lead him to take notice of his being born in sin, but only his having such experience of the continuance and power of indwelling sin, after so long a time, and so many great means to engage him to holiness; which showed that sin was inbred, and in his very nature.

Dr. Taylor often objects to these and other texts, brought by divines to prove Original Sin, that there is no mention made in them of Adam, nor of his sin. He cries out," Here is not the least mention or intimation of Adam, or any ill effects of his sin upon us.-Here is not one word, not the least hint of Adam, or any consequences of his sin," &c. &c.* He says, "If Job and his friends had known and believed the doctrine of a corrupt nature, derived from Adam's sin only, they ought in reason and truth to have given this as the true and only reason of the human imperfection and uncleanness they mention." But these objections and exclamations are made no less impertinently, than they are frequently. It is no more a proof, that corruption of nature did not come by Adam's sin, because many times when it is mentioned, Adam's sin is not expressly mentioned as the cause of it, than that death did not come by Adam's sin (as Dr. Taylor says it did) because though death, as incident to mankind, is mentioned so often in the Old Testament, and by our Saviour in his discourses, yet Adam's sin is not once expressly mentioned, after the three first chapters of Genesis, anywhere in all the Old Testament, or the four evangelists, as the occasion of it.

What Christian has there ever been, that believed the moral corruption of the nature of mankind, who ever doubted that it came that way, which the apostle speaks of, when he says, " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin?" Nor indeed have they any more reason to doubt of it, than to doubt of the whole history of our first parents, because Adam's name is so rarely mentioned, on any occasion in Scripture, after that first account of him and Eve's never at all; and because we have no more any express mention of the particular manner, in which mankind were first brought into being, either with respect to the creation of Adam or Eve. It is sufficient, that the abiding most visible effects of these things, remain in the view of mankind in all ages and are often spoken of in Scripture; and that the particular manner of their being introduced, is once plainly set forth in the beginning of the Bible, in that history which gives us an account of the origin of all things. And doubtless it was expected, by the great author of the Bible, that the account in the three first chapters of Genesis should be taken as a plain account of the introduction of both natural and moral evil into the world, as it has been shown to be so indeed. The history of Adam's sin, with its circumstances, God's threatening, and the sentence pronounced upon him after his transgression, and the immediate consequences, consisting in so vast an alteration in his state, and the state of the world, which abides still, with respect to all his posterity, do most directly and sufficiently lead to an understanding of the rise of calamity, sin and death, in this sinful, miserable world.

It is fit we all should know, that it does not become us to tell the Most High, how often he shall particularly explain and give the reason of any doctrine which he teaches, in order to our believing what he says. If he has at all given us

• Pages 5, 64, 96, 97, 98, 102, 108, 112, 118, 120, 122, 127, 128, 136, 142, 143, 149, 152, 155, 229.

† 142

evidence that it is a doctrine agreeable to his mind, it becomes us to receive it with full credit and submission; and not sullenly to reject it, because our notions and humors are not suited in the manner, and number of times, of his particularly explaining it to us. How often is pardon of sins promised in the Old Testament to repenting and returning sinners? How many hundred times Is God's special favor there promised to the sincerely righteous, without any express mention of these benefits being through Christ? Would it therefore be becoming us to say, that, inasmuch as our dependence on Christ for these benefits, is a doctrine, which, if true, is of such importance, God ought expressly to have mentioned Christ's merits as the reason and ground of the benefits, if he knew they were the ground of them, and should have plainly declared it sooner, and more frequently, if ever he expected we should believe him, when he did tell us of it? How often is vengeance and misery threatened in the Old Testament to the wicked, without any clear and express signification of any such thing intended, as that everlasting fire, where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth, in another world, which Christ so often speaks of as the punishment appointed for all the wicked? Would it now become a Christian, to object and say, that if God really meant any such thing, he ought in reason and truth to have declared it plainly and fully; and not to have been so silent about a matter of such vast importance to all mankind, for four thousand years together?

CHAPTER III.

OBSERVATIONS ON VARIOUS OTHER PLACES OF SCRIPTURE, PRINCIPALLY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, PROVING THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN

SECTION I.

Observations on John iii. 6, in connection with some other passages in the New Testament.

THOSE Words of Christ, giving a reason to Nicodemus, why we must be born again, John iii. 6, "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit, is spirit;" have not, without good reason, been produced by divines, as a proof of the doctrine of original sin; supposing, that by flesh here is meant the human nature in a debased and corrupt state. Yet Dr. Taylor, p. 144, thus explains these words, That which is born of the flesh, is flesh: "That which is born by natural descent and propagation, is a man, consisting of body and soul, or the mere constitution and powers of a man in their natural state." But the constant use of these terms, flesh and spirit, in other parts of the New Testament, when thus set in opposition one to another, and the latter said to be produced by the Spirit of God, as here, and when speaking of the same thing, which Christ is here speaking of to Nicodemus, viz., the requisite qualifications to salvation, will fully vindicate the sense of our divines. Thus in the 7th and 8th chapters of Romans, where these terms flesh and spirit (oags and лverμa) are abundantly repeated, and set in opposition, as here. So, chap. vii. 14: The

law is spiritual (arevμarizos), but I am carnal (oαoxixos), sold under sin. He cannot only mean, "I am a man, consisting of body and soul, and having the powers of a man." Ver. 18, "I know that in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." He does not mean to condemn his frame, as consisting of body and soul; and to assert, that in his human constitution, with the powers of e man, dwells no good thing. And when he says in the last verse of the chapter, "With the mind, I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh, the law of sin;" he cannot mean, "I myself serve the law of God; but with my innocent human constitution, as having the powers of a man, I serve the law of sin." And when he says in the next words in the beginning of the 8th chapter, "There is no condemnation to them, that walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit;" and ver. 4, "The righteousness of the law is fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh;" he cannot mean, "There is no condemnation to them that walk not according to the powers of a man," &c. And when he says, ver. 5 and 6, "They that are after the flesh, do mind the things of the flesh; and to be carnally minded is death;" he does not intend, "They that are according to the human constitution, and the powers of a man, do mind the things of the human constitution and powers; and to mind these, is death." And when he says, ver. 7 and 8, "The carnal (or fleshly) mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be; so that they that are in the flesh, cannot please God;" he cannot mean, that, " to mind the things which are agreeable to the powers and constitution of a man" (who, as our author says, is constituted or made right), " is enmity against God; and that a mind which is agreeable to this right human constitution, as God hath made it, is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be; and that they who are according to such a constitution, cannot please God." And when it is said, ver. 9, "Ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit;" the apostle cannot mean, "Ye are not in the human nature, as constituted of body and soul, and with the powers of a man.” It is most manifest, that by the flesh here, the apostle means some nature that is corrupt, and of an evil tendency, and directly opposite to the law, and holy nature of God; so that to be, and walk according to it, and to have a mind conformed to it, is to be an utter enemy to God and his law, in a perfect inconsistence with being subject to God, and pleasing God; and in a sure and infallible tendency to death, and utter destruction. And it is plain, that here by being and walking after, or according to the flesh, is meant the same thing as being and walking according to a corrupt and sinful nature; and to be and walk according to the spirit, is to be and walk according to a holy and divine nature, or principle: and to be carnally minded, is the same as being viciously and corruptly minded; and to be spiritually minded, is to be of a virtuous and holy disposition.

When Christ says, John iii. 6, "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh," he represents the flesh not merely as a quality; for it would be incongruous, to speak of a quality as a thing born: it is a person, or man, that is born, There fore man, as in his whole nature corrupt, is called flesh: which is agreeable to other Scripture representations, where the corrupt nature is called the old man, the body of sin, and the body of death. Agreeable to this are those represen tations in the 7th and 8th chapters of Romans: there flesh is figuratively represented as a person, according to the apostle's manner, observed by Mr. Locke, and after him by Dr. Taylor, who takes notice, that the apostle, in the 6th and 7th of Romans, represents sin as a person; and that he figuratively distinguishes in himself two persons; speaking of flesh as his person. For I know th it in me, that is in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing. And it may be observed, that in the 8th chapter he still continues this representation, speaking of the flesh

as a person: and accordingly in the 6th and 7th verses, speaks of the mind of the flesh, qoornua oaoxos, and of the mind of the spirit, goornua nrevμatos, as if the flesh and spirit were two opposite persons, each having a mind contrary to the mind of the other. Dr. Taylor interprets this mind of the flesh, and mind of the spirit, as though the flesh and the spirit were here spoken of as the different objects, about which the mind spoken of is conversant. Which is plainly beside the apostle's sense; who speaks of the flesh and spirit as the subjects and agents, in which the mind spoken of is; and not the objects about which it acts. We have the same phrase, again, ver. 27: He that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what is the mind of the spirit, goorqua avevμatos; the mind of the spiritual nature in the saints being the same with the mind of the Spirit of God himself, who imparts and actuates that spiritual nature; here the spirit is the subject and agent, and not the object. The same apostle in like manner uses the word rovs, in Col. ii. 18, Vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, vaо TOν VOOS Tηs бαрxos avrov, by the mind of his flesh. And this agent so often called flesh, represented by the apostle, as altogether evil, without any good thing dwelling in it, or belonging to it; yea, perfectly contrary to God and his law, and tending only to death and ruin, and directly opposite to the spirit, is what Christ speaks of to Nicodemus as born in the first birth, as giving a reason why there is a necessity of a new birth, in order to a better production.

One thing is particularly observable in that discourse of the apostle, in the 7th and 8th of Romans, in which he so often uses the term flesh, as opposite to spirit, which, as well as many other things in his discourse, makes it plain, that by flesh he means something in itself corrupt and sinful, and that is, that he expressly calls it sinful flesh, Rom. viii. 3. It is manifest, that by sinful flesh he means the same thing with that flesh spoken of in the immediately foregoing and following words, and in all the context: and that when it is said, Christ was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, the expression is equipollent with those that speak of Christ as made sin, and made a curse for us.

Flesh and spirit are opposed to one another in Gal. v. in the same manner as in the 8th of Romans: and there, by flesh cannot be meant only the human nature of body and soul, or the mere constitution and powers of a man, as in its natural state, innocent and right. In the 16th verse the apostle says, "Walk in the spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh :" where the flesh is spoken of as a thing of an evil inclination, desire or lust. But this is more strongly signified in the next words: "For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other." What could have been said more plainly, to show that what the apostle means by flesh, is something very evil in its nature, and an irreconcilable enemy to all goodness? And it may be observed, that in these words, and those that follow, the apostle still figuratively represents the flesh as a person or agent, desiring, acting, having lusts, and performing works. And by works of the flesh, and fruits of the spirit, which are opposed to each other, from ver. 19, to the end, are plainly meant the same as works of a sinful nature, and fruits of a holy, renewed nature. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, &c. But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, &c. The apostle, by flesh, does not mean any thing that is innocent and good in itself, that only needs to be restrained, and kept in proper bounds; but something altogether evil, which is to be destroyed, and not merely restrained. 1 Cor. v. 5, "To deliver such a one to Satan, for the destruction of the flesh." We must have no mercy on it;